Monday, July 27, 2015

Before I delve into this article, a few thoughts on dirty
air, ozone etc.

One of the most frustrating aspects of discussing high ozone
days is the fact that high ozone days are 100% controlled by an uncontrollable
force called “weather”.A city like San
Antonio, with essentially the same emissions from year to year can have as few
as two high ozone days (2014) or as many as over a dozen in other years. Early
fall cool fronts with “dirty high pressure” systems that usher in polluted air
can change our daily ozone levels from 35 ppb. to 75ppb. in a matter of days. On the other hand, that same cool front can
also have little impact on our ozone if clouds form during the time we are
under the “dirty high pressure”, by not allowing UV light to convert NOx into
O3 (ozone). These are random events, but yet the EPA penalizes cities for
having high ozone days regardless of the weather.Most people would be very upset if the EPA
decided to start fining cities for having too many thunderstorms, but that
essentially is what is happening.

“Dirty Air.”

When any of us hears or reads those two words we instantly
think of smog, smokestacks and black soot billowing out of tailpipes. Those are
anthropogenic (man-made) sources and can lead to negative health issues if they
are not controlled.In San Antonio, we
are often faced with other air quality issues that are rarely mentioned in the
media or government. Much of our worst air quality days can be blamed on Mexican
smoke, Saharan dust and high pollen. Mexican
smoke from agricultural fires in Mexico and Central America negatively impacts our air and causes haze from April-June. Saharan dust causes haze and elevates particulate matter from June-September and high
pollen impacts us from December-April.These
natural and man-made events send many citizens a year running to nearby doctors
and pharmacies for relief and treatments, but are completely beyond our control.

Before I discuss the Express-News
article, I want to let it be known that I do not hold any grudge or ill will toward the writer, Scott
Huddleston and I hope he will include me as an alternative source in the future. His writing is professional, but unfortunately, it seems as though most of his
sources in this article come from the same perspective on this topic.I will never understand how and why
individuals interpret information so differently. The information I discuss in
my blog is common knowledge to AACOG members, our city leaders, the Sierra Club and the Environmental
Defense Fund. Even so, they give the impression that we are still living in the 60’s, when
cars fueled with leaded gasoline and four-barrel carburetors were a threat to
our health.Cars are the great "evil
demons" in their minds and we should all be walking, biking, riding the bus or
taking a train to work. I'm cool with those modes of transportation (I bike about 25 miles a week), but they fail to see the dramatic improvements in our
emission reductions and don’t seem to understand that ozone events are rare and
caused by unusual weather patterns. As a member of the AACOG Air Advisory Committee, I invite Scott to attend our public meetings in the future so he can listen to a wide range
of questions and comments on ozone modelling data from other like-minded
members on the committee.

Let’s see…According to documents from the Alamo Area Council
of Governments (AACOG) and the EPA, San Antonio and surrounding counties’
nitrogen oxide emissions are around 190 tons per day compared with Houston’s 1000
tons per day.Maybe I’m wrong, but I
think that makes Houston’s air quality about 5 times dirtier (based on emissions per day) than San Antonio’s,
despite its lower than usual ozone recordings from 2012-2014.
The first paragraph states “San Antonio registered the
second highest readings for ground-level ozone in Texas for the past three
years-even worse than Houston.” This statement is based on the 2012-2014 EPA’s
fourth highest, three year average of the ozone reported by regulatory CAMS
that measure ozone in most large cities in the USA. Using the three year EPA
ozone formula from 2012-2014, our highest 8 hour ozone recording from one CAM
(near 1604 and I-10) was tied with Houston's C84 at 80ppb. This is the only
time in ozone recorded history that a three year average has put one of San
Antonio's CAMs in a tie with Houston.

Rating San Antonio as second in air
quality, (based on ozone, not emissions), took looking at last year’s fourth highest eight hour average ozone
number of 72 ppb. (below the EPA high ozone standard) and comparing it with
Houston’s 71 ppb. A real stretch of data
analysis in my mind. What hurt San
Antonio’s 2012-2014 average was 2012, when CAMS 58 hit 87 ppb. as its fourth
highest eight hour average. CAMS 23, located near John Marshall HS, only
recorded 81 ppb. that year.If you look
at the current three year average (2013-2015) you'll see that once again San
Antonio is ranked in third place at 74 ppb vs Houston at 76 ppb. San Antonio’s
highest eight hour ozone average for this year is 79 ppb. vs 108 ppb. for Houston.

More importantly, is how many high ozone days we have
experienced in the past two years using the three regulatory monitors. In 2014
San Antonio experienced only two high ozone days and so far this year we have
experienced only two days as well. While the ozone season is far from over, I
do not see this as a sense of urgency or looming health hazard. Mobile and
point emissions of nitrogen oxide are diminishing every year despite our rapid
growth due to current regulations and advance technology being used in our
planes, trains and automobiles.

OK…now let’s talk a little bit about the image that was used
to illustrate this story. According to the TCEQ (Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality), our ozone levels during the afternoon that this image
was taken (July 22nd), were 37 ppb., which is considered to be very
low. The only pollutant mentioned by TCEQ was Saharan dust, which has been very
prevalent this summer and has been responsible for an increase in my asthmatic
symptoms. The Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System model (NAAPS) showed
a plume of Mexican smoke moving through our area on Wednesday. Mexican smoke
from agricultural fires often degrades our air quality from April-June.So, the “smog” documented by the photo used
on the front page of the paper is from a combination of Mexican smoke and
Saharan dust, neither of which have anything to do with San Antonio’s emissions. While the photo doesn't actually mention that the smog is from San Antonio, it certainly gives readers the impression that it is, based on the context of the article and the banner headline.

My councilman, Ron Nirenberg made a couple of quotes at the
AACOG Air Executive meeting on Weds. that appeared in this article. “San
Antonio must act as soon as possible to reduce air pollution” and that “he’s a
little frustrated that the city took two years to craft a plan and is now
teetering on noncompliance with the federal air quality standards”.

I’m all for improving our air quality, but let’s look at
some data first…

The idling program that is mentioned in the article, removes
NOx by 150 tons annually. San Antonio produces around 190 tons per day, so that
works out to around a half of a ton per day difference. This will make only a tiny dent in our ozone.
At least this program doesn’t cost the average citizen any money to implement. Vehicle
emissions testing are another story. Vehicle emissions testing are costly to every
driver, even if they pass or fail, and make almost no difference in the
recorded ozone. Over ten years ago, AACOG modeling data showed that
implementing emissions testing would only reduce ozone by ½ of 1 ppb. With
cleaner engines, the result in 2015 would even be less.

Based on the latest modeling data from AACOG, local mobile
sources (cars, trucks, etc.) in 2018 will contribute only 7 ppb. to our ozone design value (which is currently at 74 ppb. on
7-25-15) and point sources (power plants and manufacturing) will contribute 9 ppb. to that value.The new EPA standard is predicted to drop to
at least 65 ppb. To reach that new
standard, San Antonio would have to remove at least 50% of our vehicles and
stop generating 50% of our manufacturing and power plant production.Based on the latest data from AACOG, even if
you were to completely shut down San Antonio, we would still see a design value
of 52 ppb. due to transported
pollution from other cities, counties, states and countries. Even biogenic
sources contribute. As of the date I am
writing my blog, Big Bend National Park has a fourth highest ozone recording of
64 ppb. as compared with San Antonio’s 67 ppb.Based on traveling there in the past, I don’t recall many planes, trains
or automobiles out in the park.

If the EPA does drop the standard to 65 ppb. in October,
almost every city in the USA with an ozone monitor will quickly go into
nonattainment due to background sources that are beyond their control. Scott Huddleston does quote Universal City Mayor John Williams in the article, who agrees that there is no way San Antonio could lower its eight hour ozone average to 65 ppb..

Later, fellow AACOG Air Advisory Committee member and Sierra Club member, Russell Seal, who often sits only a few feet away from me during our meetings is quoted saying, "Rather than worrying about the EPA's proposals, the panel should ask why San Antonio's readings have been slow to improve, and are now higher than Houston's?"

Based on Russell's quote, I'm wondering if we really do attend the same meetings together. Russell receives the same lengthy model updates, current emissions inventories and ozone updates from AACOG as I do, and yet asks that question?

What our leaders fail to understand is that cities like San
Antonio are already reducing our emissions every year.By 2018, auto emissions will be almost twice
as clean as today’s vehicles and that’s only three years away.Yes, we can always do more, but given that we
are a city of over a million people and living in the far south of the United
States where ozone season lasts much longer than northern states, I think we
are doing a great job of keeping our air clean. What keeps us looming on
the edge of nonattainment is not dirtier air, but a continuing changing of the rules.

About Me

My goal is to present a well balanced site of information that may not be normally distributed by media or governmental sites.
Mark is a member of the Alamo Area Council of Governments' (AACOG) Air Advisory Committee.
The author of this blog is Mark Langford, an asthmatic, who has had an interest in weather related science for most of his life. Over the past five years he has been active in learning the true roots of high ozone events in San Antonio, Texas, where he lives. By studying rural and urban ozone monitor information, along with expensive computer modeling being funded by cities like San Antonio, Mark has learned that many cities across the U.S. are being unfairly penalized for air quality problems that are not their own.
This blog will share links to studies and other information for those who are studying ground level ozone.